Obama's attack (along with Pelosi)on the Bush Administration and the CIA's tactics; the agenda to close Guantanamo Bay; the stupidity of O's apology tours; Obama's unfeeling robotic refusal to denounce terrorism; these, and more, add up to Cheney being right-on in his criticism of Obama. More people in positions of "power" need to find some guts and speak out along with Cheney.
The ludicrous thing here is that the suspected terrorist was appointed a lawyer...now the suspect is legally silent. If an act of terrorism takes place in the near future and the suspected terrorist in custody admits that he knew the plan...the left will receive irreparable political damage regardless of intent.
A major shift of power to either party can be disastrous. Is the right just giving the left enough invisible rope to hang itself?
I think Janet Napolitano has done a terrible job in her current position. Instead of monitoring veterans returning from war maybe she could have had DHS monitoring potential terrorists that have been pointed out to her by their father. (Christmas Bomber) Ms. Napolitano could do the right thing and hand in her resignation but?? Obama hired her so he should be criticized for his decision.
The sad thing is there have been more acts of terror committed by current service members than former members. Maybe someone can check out officers of the US military who make hostile comments about the country they are sworn to protect! Just a thought
Yup. Obama's decision to close Gitmo and release some detainees back to Yemen in addition to his treatment of the shooter at Fort Hood, the would be Christmas airline bomber, and his decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in a criminal trial in MY all clearly point to Obama's weakness on terrorists. I can add his foreign policy towards Iran and N. Korea as well as his willingness to sign away American sovereignty in a cap and trade treaty also shows a weakness in his presidency that will encourage terrorists. In addition, as Cheney indicates the rhetoric from the white house is also soft on terror. I honestly can't see how you can make the case for the opposite!
Why is Dick Cheney claiming that President Obama is encouraging terrorism? Does that square with the facts?
I cannot claim to fathom the labyrinthine mechaninations of the former Vice President, but I can certainly say that it does not square with any facts. Dick Cheney and others are still beating war drums when their own strategies did little but profit bankers, oil companies, and military contractors--aka campaign contributors--while playing into the hands of the terrorists. War is a Racket.
Even a cursory look into the actions of Al Quaeda reveals that their goal is the financial collapse of the West, America in particular. The Mujaheddin successfully brought about the collapse of the Soviets and now they are using similar strategies against us. Every dollar we spend to trick ourselves into believing we are safer brings us one step closer to ruin. By not overreacting the President is keeping us safer. Cheney-Bush-Rove would have already dropped troops in Yemen and that would solve nothing. If we are attacking anyone but Al Quaeda, we're essentially slitting our own throats.
Obama has presented a new military plan to deal with Afghanistan including the dispatching of 30,000 more troops. He has stepped up American military activities against Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Yemen. Cheney said the underwear bomber should have been sent to a military court instead of a U.S. Federal court, forgetting that the "shoe bomber" was tried in a U.S. Federal court, convicted and serving a life sentence in a U.S. Federal prison. What more does he expect the President to do?
Apparently we don't know where Bin Laden is. Someone said the other day that we haven't received any reliable intelligence on where he's located in six years or so. Despite the fact that there is a $50 million price on his head.
Doubtless bin Laden's secretive intelligence network informed him about the existence of airline tickets, and places like Australia with gigantic areas with no-one in them... or the former Soviet Union.... a quick shave, some glasses, and off we fly
Cheney does have an agenda. "The Apology Tour" is a perfect example of a man who doesn't have the experience needed to do a decent job. Why does he think a european-America is a good thing? We look like a bunch of pansies. The health care spoof makes us look like east european-Americans.
Cheney deeply believes in the supremecy of the Executive Branch....from his time with Nixon, to his track record in Congress, to his time as Vice President, he has done whatever he could, and rallied whatever force he could to make the Executive stronger...
Now here is the deeper issue...
Firstly he continues to criticize Obama for not utilizing his office more, or in a way that Cheney and others of his persuasion want...or display that they want....
Over this period, the next four years, this will continue, and expand...and popular conceptions will be tested and manipulated over that time span...
Eventually a Republican, and potentially a conservative one at that, will find their way to Executive power.....and have what kind of tools to work with?
But, I think there is also something else....I don't believe the mindset of the supreme Executive are all conservative Republicans, or Democrats, or what have you.....it transcends all of these....it is the power to dispense funds...to authorize programs, to secretly operate behind a cloak of Executive priviledge.....which faction is in power when this shift ultimately occurs is another matter...
Read up on this man and what he has publicly left behind him....understand what he represents...and whom..
Excerpt: What is wrong with Dick Cheney? Since the earliest days of his vice presidency, people have been asking this question. At first, it was mostly out of partisan pique; but, increasingly, it's in troubled tones, as one of the most powerful men on the planet grows ever more rigid, belligerent, and just plain odd in both his public utterances ("Go fuck yourself," Senator Leahy) and private actions (shoot a man in the face and not bother to call your boss 'til the next day: What's up with that?). In October 2005, longtime Bush-Cheney pal Brent Scowcroft fanned the Dick-has-changed flames when he told The New Yorker, "I consider Cheney a good friend--I've known him for thirty years. But Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." By the following February, a Newsweek profile noted that speculation as to the causes of the vice president's "darkening persona" had become a favorite Beltway parlor game. ("Has he been transformed, warped, perhaps corrupted--by stress, wealth, aging, illness, the real terrors of the world or possibly some inner goblins?") Fast-forward a year, and Cheney can hardly open his mouth without setting off a fresh wave of buzz about whether he has finally gone 'round the bend. As Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland recently asked, "Is the vice president losing his influence, or perhaps his mind?
I think the recent ramblings of Cheney reflect his desire to continue the GOP agenda and secure more influence for the many collegues he has secured government contracts for. Cheney is a whiley politician and with no other pitbull for the party to call on he is looking out for himself.
I don't see the word as an insult, but as a description of a progressive philosophy. A school of thought that places society over the individual, the largest minority in the world, and consider it evil.
It's neither good nor bad but simply IS. The only person that would feel offended by such a label is one with a conscience that knows the difference between right and wrong. Someone that truly believes in liberalism should be proud to have that label.
I think Cheney's BS is a smokescreen to cover his own ass for having tortured people contrary to US law and for having been the inspiration for the Iraq invasion. The longer that the majority of nations manages to contain and confine terrorist activity, the more horrendous the Bush/Cheney legacy looks. I think Cheney's fingerpointing is misguided, however, because it keeps his black memory alive and increases the likelihood he might actually be called to account someday.
The US officially removed the MKO (people's Mujahedin of Iran) from its blacklist of terrorist organizations. The same ones who recently killed Iranian scientists. The same organization that was trained, that is funded...
As the President of the United States continues to refuse to identify on going acts of Islamic terrorism with Islam; is his refusal to do so a direct or tacit approval or support for the religion of Islam and Sharia law...